A. I never said his reforms were nothing. B.The changes in union policy has coincided with a decline in school performance (teachers union busted), higher crime reported in major cities (weakened police unions) and major issue with the firefighters (union laws also weakened for this category) I'm not claiming a causation here but there certainly is a high correlation. So please, tell me what reforms he has made that have improved Wisconsin and try to support with evidence. Otherwise I'll stick with calling him the Midwestern version of Christie.
P.S. I love union busting. I just don't endorse it when there is no follow up policy to effect positive transition. Busting teacher unions and then leaving the schools to fend for themselves helps no one as is evidenced in Wisconsin

So the union reforms he has led there are nothing? The state of Wisconsin is still not in the best of shape for sure, but he has had 4 years to reverse the policies of many liberal governors. The changes in union policy and the way public employees are dealt with, if left in place, will make the economic future much brighter in Wisconsin. It's ok to think he's not a viable candidate for President - he may in fact turn out not to be. But don't downplay what's he has been able to do under very difficult circumstances.

Terrified of Romney

The Romney campaign is always dumber than I think it's going to be. First, he was caught flat-footed by the attacks on his Bain record and his failure to release tax returns, even though any idiot could have seen that Democrats were going to make an issue of both those things. Then he went overseas to look Presidential and promptly alienated everyone he talked to, turning easy photo-ops into a series of gaffe fests.

And now he's made his veep pick, and who does he choose? Paul Ryan, a man whose budget proposals are radioactively unpopular with the majority of the electorate. Ryan is, as Nate Silver says, unlikely to help win his home state of Wisconsin, where Obama is significantly ahead and Ryan is simply not that popular outside of his home district. Moreover, as Jonathan Bernstein notes, Ryan as a House member has little experience with national campaigns. There's a chance there’s some unexposed skeleton in his closet, and that he will respond badly at that revelation. Ryan may help with fundraising among conservatives, and he may help energize base voters—but Romney wasn't having trouble fundraising anyway, and conservatives were always going to vote for him in significant numbers on Obama-hate alone.

Ryan, then, has little potential upside, and some serious potential downside. Probably he won't change the balance of the race at all… but if he does, the likelihood it that won’t be good for the GOP. Romney is currently down in polls, so it makes sense to shake up the race—but then why not go with someone like Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, both of whom have more national or at least statewide experience and more appeal to independents? Picking Ryan is an unnecessary and unforced error.

As a liberal, I hope Romney loses, and so the fact that he and his campaign appear to be bumbling boneheads is, in that respect, comforting. It's always hard to tell how much gaffes and aimless speeches really affect the campaign, especially this far from the election. Still, while Romney made a fool of himself abroad, it may not have hurt him too much; but it can't have helped either. His ineffectual responses to attacks on Bain may have cost him in swing states, and so forth. All other things being equal, running a lousy campaign has to hurt your chances at election. And so, in that sense, I'm happy to see Romney running a lousy campaign.

The one problem is Romney might still win, no matter how bad a campaign he runs. If the Eurozone collapses and we go into another recession before November, Romney could win. Statistician Silver at 538 currently has Obama's chances of winning at around 70 percent. That gives Romney a three in 10 chance at the Oval Office—which is not negligible.

And if Romney wins, his incompetent campaign starts to take on some frightening overtones. Yes, it's fun to see candidate Romney alienating allies—but what happens when he's actually President and has to make serious foreign policy decisions with thousands or tens of thousands of lives in the balance? It's enjoyable to watch him make bone-headed political decisions, but what happens when he actually has to get bills passed through Congress, or deal with domestic crises?

Campaigning skills doesn't necessarily translate into skill in governing. George W. Bush was a very competent campaigner, but an atrocious President. Obama is a dazzling campaigner, but a mediocre President. So maybe Romney will prove to be lousy on the trail and a great administrator. Still, following his campaign is definitely giving me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

No. I made no comment on Obama. I merely said "Romney appears incompetent and underprepared to be president" Once again tablemountain, you insert your own opinion where no inference was made. Please stop looking for hidden meaning in my comments. They stand on their own.

Of course I offer opinions. Just not the ones you have inferred over the last several days. As for chastisement, I didn't mean anything personal, just getting tired of loose reading in politics. Too much of our political conversation is dominated by incorrect inferrences as opposed to what was actually said. Obama apology tour: never happened. Romney closing a plant resulting in a woman's cancer: Not true. My saying Romney is incompetent equating a pro-Obama statement: Not true. I think we all can and need to do better.

You can say what you want about Obama as President, but he ran an amazingly effective campaign in 2008. His Iowa caucus strategy was shockingly successful; his focus on caucus states the same; and he handled the Jeremiah Wright scandal by giving one of the greatest American speeches in history. The whole campaign was a bravura performance...and while his campaign against Romney hasn't been nearly as dazzling, it's been extremely efficient and smart.
There are a lot of things I don't like about Obama (failing to prosecute wall street bankers and US torture perpetrators; unilaterally deciding to assassinate people; Bradley Manning — I could go on) but he has so far shown himself to be very competent at campaigning. Much more so than Romney.

Ummm...I was kind of restating the point of the article? Which is that Romney has run a terrible campaign, and that makes me nervous about his competence as POTUS?
Tablemountain was saying that Obama isn't competent; again, I was saying that as a campiagner, at least, he's very competent, which cannot be said for Romney — thus my nervousness.

My bad. Forgot you wrote article and you are certainly allowed to make comments you feel appropriate. Didn't read Tablemountains comments to be about Obama being inept at campaigning as opposed to running the country but that's your issue. Once again, my apologies. Not an excuse but had a root canl yesterday. My sincere appologies.